You missed everything...

First off, that's not what Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" was covering at all. The difference between the Appolian and the Dionysian has nothing to do with your feelings on the matter. As in regards to Pollock...the Appolian aspect would be the colors used, the lines, etc...the Dionysian would be the abstract aspect of it. Whether you like it or hate it doesn't matter in that regard...you can hate or like both. But it's the latter, the Dionysian, which reveals something more than just mere form. For example: take the word APPLE. The Appolian is the basic structure of the word: A-P-P-L-E. The Dionysian is that which advocates meaning...apple: a fruit which grows from a tree.

That was Nietzsche's biggest contribution to the discussion on art...although he went on to talk about tragedy and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...


As for the two "valueless" arguments...they're not mine...I never even came across them until yesterday when I was reading an essay in that magazine. And I don't see how you proclaim them as "valueless"...I added a little bit of my own philosophical musings, but I think their main argument is extremely interesting.

How do we decipher art? Is it because of a pathological framework, or is deeply rooted within an emotional context?

And last but not least, that wasn't Heidegger's concept...that was another philosopher using Heidegger to help explain why man needs art. Heidegger did write an essay about art (which I have, but haven't read)...I'll read it sometime soon. But, this is incorrect:
As far as I can tell, from what I've read, this essay was merely taking Heidegger's concept of Dasein: being-there. And I quote: "'Being in love' is an excellent intuitive example of how this works, for the term makes no regerence to existence in time or space, but rather to specific state of being [. . .]" (Reneh Karamians [Philosophy Now, Issue 57, page 10]). Nevertheless, the aspect that it will end, that it is only temporal, plagues its essence.

What I think this individual was trying to suggest is that when experiencing art, man is able to escape this "negative aspect" of existence by divulging deeply into the experience at hand. But I must admit, I'm very confused by this idea, and I'm not sure if I've fully grasped it myself...